Peter Kirsanow recently wrote a piece on the controversial 1619 Project for National Review Online. Spoiler alert: Kirsanow is critical of the project, labeling it historical revisionism. He makes a pretty good case for it being just that. But that doesn’t sit with The Root’s Michael Harriot, a self-described “world-renowned wypipologist,” who is so incensed by Kirsanow’s criticism that he wrote a piece of his own, rebuking Kirsanow’s opinion because it’s so typical of an ignorant racist white person:
The National Review’s Peter Kirsanow wrote an article entitled “History According to the 1619 Project,” suggesting that the project is trying to envenom white children by exposing them to the poisonous truth—namely, America’s shameful history of slavery: https://t.co/nQzbRGOwfv pic.twitter.com/TZoJiLRSYY
— The Root (@TheRoot) January 16, 2020
Harriot really doesn’t care for Kirsanow’s take. And why should he? Why should Harriot care what a white guy thinks about the 1619 Project?
“And, as white people are wont to do, Kirsanow framed his argument in the context of Martin Luther King Jr. White people love to quote King because he is a mythical figure who has been whitewashed by the very version of America that Kirsanow wants to perpetuate.”
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) January 17, 2020
“‘The 1619 Project’s obsession with race, standing alone, is bad enough,’ Kirsanow writes, whitely.”
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) January 17, 2020
Wow, Michael Harriot really nailed it, didn’t he?
"'The 1619 Project’s obsession with race, standing alone, is bad enough,' Kirsanow writes, whitely."
Apparently writing whitely means favoring facts and evidence over emotion and propaganda. No wonder white people criticize the 1619 project. https://t.co/QEPCRvhxVd
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) January 17, 2020
Recommended
And apparently being Michael Harriot means assuming people are white if they don’t agree with you.
Today I learned that Peter Kirsanow is white. https://t.co/wsEXoqUxIq
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) January 17, 2020
Amazing: this mook wrote an entire article premised around the idea that Peter Kirsanow, as "a white man," had no right to criticize the 1619 Project…and obviously didn't bother trying to Google him or else he would have discovered that he's BLACK. https://t.co/tbbPX5DohF
— Esoteric Jeff (@EsotericCD) January 17, 2020
Have you brain geniuses figured out yet that Peter Kirsanow isn't white? https://t.co/mKv3GGPhxo
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) January 17, 2020
Hey , Mikey , Peter Kirsanow is black .
You might have to give back your Wypipology degree .
— UndrState (@UndrState) January 17, 2020
He probably should.
This is the same guy who took Pete's comments about schools failing black kids wrong and had to have as conversation with Pete himself about it.
— Matthew DesOrmeaux ⚜ (@authoridad) January 17, 2020
Does he not have Google?
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) January 17, 2020
We do:
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) January 17, 2020
I'mma need you to sit down, I need to tell ya somethin pic.twitter.com/y3j6mCFP3g
— Vincent S?. James (@slatermaus) January 17, 2020
Kirsanow’s photo is literally on the page of his NRO piece:
Embarrassing. For Michael Harriot. For The Root. For journalism.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member